Since coming to power, the DPP has made very few changes to the educational reforms set in motion by the previous KMT administration. The entire educational reform policy was set when current KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) was premier between 1992 and 1997. So it was irresponsible for Lien and KMT Legislator Lee Chia-chin (李嘉進) to claim recently that the educational reforms were the DPP's policy.
The educational reforms have become a target of a great deal of public criticism over the past couple of years, and blame for the failures has been laid on the DPP government, the current education minister and Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲). The consultation report on educational reforms written under Lee's supervision was shelved by then president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).
Many of the reform policies were not suggested by Lee Yuan-tseh. But now he has almost become the chief culprit responsible for the failure of the reforms. This is really unfair. However, if the government, especially the Ministry of Education, wants to ease the public resentment, it will still need to conduct a thorough review of the implementation of reforms, clearly explain them to the public and propose policies for reforming the reforms.
Lee Yuan-tseh spent two years presiding over the Executive Yuan's consultative committee on education reforms, collecting public opinion nationwide, conducting in-depth research and completing the consultation report. The report was a major, active contribution to the promotion of reform.
In 1998, the Executive Yuan formulated the "Education Reforms Action Proposal." Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄), then convener of the Executive Yuan's education reform task force, said the proposal was "the first real consensus" reached between the Ministry of Education, the educational reform committee and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). "There is no more disagreement," Liu said. In fact, the consultation report included a combination of suggestions that went through long-running discussions. It was the basis for the consensus that Liu claimed to have reached.
Among the many reforms, the Nine-Year Integrated Curriculum and the multiple entrance system for colleges and high schools were the two major policies that had concrete and direct effects on the public. They have also been the target of the most criticism. At a discussion forum at the Legislative Yuan last November, Minister of Education Huang Jong-tsun (黃榮村) and his three predecessors -- Kuo Wei-fan (郭為藩), Wu Jin (吳京) and Kirby Yung (楊朝祥) -- all agreed that the direction of the reforms was correct. They said the two policies should be continued.
The KMT government decided in 1999 that the nine-year integrated curriculum was to be fully implemented within four years. After coming to power, the DPP government has continued to promote it. However, the three former ministers believed that while the direction of the curriculum reform was correct, it had been implemented hurriedly without adequate complementary measures. The reform therefore needed to be adjusted and improved. Kuo even suggested that the integrated curriculum for junior high schools be suspended so as to conduct teacher training.
According to newspaper reports, however, Huang stressed that the implementation of the new curriculum must be "consistent" and could not be suspended or halted. Why did he insist on pushing the reforms even as several of his predecessors -- two of whom had promoted the reforms themselves -- were advising otherwise? The ministry should thoroughly review the implementation of the nine-year integrated curriculum policy.
The multiple entrance system for colleges and high schools has also triggered much controversy. Many people even want the old joint-college-entrance exam reinstated. The multiple-entrance system was proposed back in 1991 and has been implemented bit by bit ever since. The multiple high-school entrance plan also formally took shape in 1998. All the previous education ministers aggressively pushed for the multiple entrance proposal. Today, they also stress that it is the right policy, but that it has also spawned many problems so the ministry should properly formulate concrete strategies for improvement.
As for the 12-year compulsory education plan (under which senior-high school will also become compulsory), as far back as 1989, then premier Lee Huan (李煥) wanted to extend the length of national education to 12 years during the following three years. In 1991, then education minister Mao Kao-wen (毛高文) stated publicly that the government was planning a 12-year national education program. But the planning was not complete.
In the 2000 presidential election campaign, KMT candidate Lien included the 12-year program in his policy platform. In fact, it was also one of the six major education policies in Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) government blueprint during the campaign. What's even more worth noting is that the program is currently Huang's most important project. This policy is also listed in the Executive Yuan's government report for this year.
We can clearly see that the 12-year national-education policy is consistent and continuous. It was proposed by the KMT government but was not completed because of difficulties. The DPP government has continued to promote it. But it is an arduous and difficult project. The government should plan how to effectively promote it as the nine-year integrated curriculum has triggered serious controversy that has yet to be resolved. The government should make an all-round review and tidy up the implementation of various educational reform policies.
It should also propose remedies for problems in the implementation of reforms. It will be impossible to change the reform policies throughout, but concrete strategies are needed to effectively diagnose flaws in the policies, their implementation and problems created by the reforms. Strategies are also needed for formulating solutions.
What's most important, however, is for the ministry, the Executive Yuan and the Presidential Office to quickly design an effective mechanism to test the results of educational reforms and their implementation. Otherwise, the government will have to take responsibility for implementing policies set in the KMT era. Concrete and effective reforms are the government's responsibility now.
Chiu Hei-yuan is a professor of sociology at National Taiwan University and a member of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Francis Huang
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with